The writing of Luke has an interesting introduction. It’s not unique to the author of the book (Thucydides, Herodotus, and Polybius have similar prologues) and helps us see how much care the author is taking in their own research. They want us to know “it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you” -Luke 1:3 ESV
Let’s break this down but in no particular order.
1. “it seems good to me also”
By this point we have to ask to what Luke is referring. In verse 2 there is a term that the ESV translates to ‘ministers’ of the word. This term is something used of scribes, people that write things down and keep those writings with them. The word "hypēretai" is specifically used for someone that attends to a person or scroll. They will accompany someone for an arrest, like in Acts 5 verse 26, or keep scrolls safe, as seen in Luke 4 verse 20. We understand that Luke is saying that he is writing this book like others have done. He acknowledges that there are other writings of this nature that exist before his. This is also defended in historical accounts of the Gospels that Luke comes after Mark and Matthew in some form. I don’t think it would be hard to defend that the author is saying that he’s aware of the other Gospels before he writes. All this does for us right now is say that Luke comes later than the others but it doesn’t give us a date. What it might do, with verse 2, is say that it’s a period of time, after the author has know about these things, that they have decided to write their own record. It doesn’t say why they are now writing, so it might be too much of an assumption to say that it’s because of old age. It is good for them to write also because they have someone to write to.
2. “to write an orderly account for you”
This is one of the most important parts of his introduction. The author is saying that their writing is for someone. While we haven’t yet established a case for Luke’s accuracy or attempt at accuracy, we can start to look at who they are writing to and what we can learn about their mention. At the end of verse 3 (not included above) is “most excellent Theophilus”, not just a name but also a title. An examination of Acts, written by the same author as this Gospel, would show a few more uses of titles given to people in Roman office. All the titles are accurate and attributed for such accuracy, not for respect. The title “most excellent” has no reason to be given to someone that doesn’t hold that title if the title is a real title held by one of office in history, by this author. Said person is seen by the author as needing, not just any Gospel account, but one that is structured in the way that this author seems necessary to “have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” As is written in verse 4.
3. “having followed all things closely for some time past”
The author tells us that they have followed the things written or preached about Jesus for “some time past” and not just recently. He’s not just aware of the things but has been taught them by the time he is writing his own account. This alone can’t tell us how early the writing is but it can help us to know how late it is if we can we see how early it might be. There might be a suggestion, that you’ve heard, that Luke used his time during Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem to investigate and collect statements from witnesses for his writing, but here the author tells us that they have already been following these things. If they had taken time in this period to do an investigation, we should expect to see the author say as much. This also draws the question about how or when the author started following these things. Did they start when they started following Paul? Did they start before they knew Paul?
Looking at the full introduction, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us”, stands out as peculiar. Either the author is claiming to have seen the events of the Gospel, by including himself as one of whom things were accomplished among, or the author is claiming to be among the people that the Gospel events were accomplished among (as in the towns of Israel including the Hellenistic Jews). While we could say that he’s talking about the Gentiles, we would be forgetting that this “us” is including the recipient of the book. Theophilus is said to have been taught these things, so for the author to include them in the same group together, the second option of being from the towns or the people of Israel, seems more likely.
So what is this title, “most excellent”, that the author gives to Theophilus? The Greek word “kratiste” is also used of two characters in Acts. Acts 23:26 and 24:3 identifies a “most excellent Felix” and Chapter 26 verse 25 identifies a “most excellent Festus” as well. The first, most excellent Felix, is “Felix the governor” (Acts 23:24; 24:1; 24:10) in the capital city of Caesarea, of the Roman province in Judea (c. 52-59 AD). The second, most excellent Festus, was the governor that replaced Felix (from 59 to 62 AD). Both are given the title as well as being called the governor (hēgemony) and sometimes both (Acts 23:26). Felix doesn’t continue to be given the governor title as the account continues in 24:24 but the absence of the “most excellent” title isn’t unusual. It’s given when someone is addressing the person that holds it. Each occurrence comes from a statement made to the person directly. Before Paul defends his mission against an accusation of insanity, no one addresses Festus directly. So the “most excellent” is used when someone is spoken to or written to. It’s also used for people of Roman office, and two of these have been governors of Judea identified by the author of Acts. What Acts does not do is call Theophilus “most excellent” in its introduction to that person. This would be unusual only if Theophilus still held the title.
The title itself may have evidence outside of the Biblical books (specifically the writings of Luke) for being used by Greco-Roman officials other than Roman governors. The Epistle to Diognetus, while under debate, addresses its recipient as “most excellent” as well, though not much is known about Diognetus. It is possible that they are a procurator and that lends to several examples dealing with court or law that we have.
Now that we have our best clues from the opening words of these two books, we can assemble our base facts. We don’t yet have all of the information or facts that we need to assume a date but we can, after charting these, move on to more investigations.
1. Written statements from witnesses of Jesus exist, such as the Gospels, before Luke’s Gospel.
2. Luke and Theophilus have both been taught these things. (The Gospels)
3. Luke is confident that what he writes is accurate.
4. Luke has spent ‘some time’ learning these things.
5. Theophilus is a ‘most excellent’ when the Gospel is written to them but not when Acts is.
Theophilus is a Greek name that means “loved by God” from Theos and philos. It’s important to note that the name was used by both Jews and Romans in the first century AD. The only way to narrow the search for this person is to follow the available clues left by the author of Luke and Acts as well as any historical data found outside of the Biblical books.
1. Josephus gives us some help by identifying a Theophilus who was high priest between 37-41 AD. This high priest was the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Joseph who was also called Caiaphas, the one that tried Jesus. He was part of a powerful family of priests and likely a Sadducee. He was appointed by the Roman governor of Syria, Vitellius. His name and appointment to the position give him strong ties to the Hellenistic culture where the title might make more sense to be used if the Gospel is being sent to a high priest. The existence of Theophilus is supported by an ossuary (an inscription in Greek) that names them as the father of John the father of Johanna. My theory is that this Gospel, one that names Johanna as one of the women at the crucifixion, inspired or has some link to the naming of their granddaughter. The use of the title for this person would then be because they are acting as a judge over someone concerning the Gospel, or acting in defense of someone concerning the Gospel, and Luke is writing to them so that they have a trustworthy account from a companion of theirs that they trust.
2. Because the name was not rare but also because we don’t have enough records of all Roman officials, this could still be some other Roman in a position to judge or defend someone in court. The case for a clear use of the title is nonexistent. Even more curious is the absence of the title in the second book to the same person. What would be the reason to write the second book detailing the acts of the Apostles, closely following Peter and then Paul, if they’re no longer in a position to be addressed the same? This supports the idea of them being both an official interested in converting and a later convert wanting to know more when no longer in office. Unfortunately, there are no other historical ties to anyone that we can investigate to fit this theory. It might be equally plausible as the high priest even without the same support.
This doesn’t change much about what we can know as far as the dating goes. Either option could be giving us the same time period but the second option gives us a wider range. If it’s the high priest then the Gospel was written between 37-50 AD. I would give it as much room to get to 50 AD using the probability that Luke didn’t know that said person was no longer high priest. We see that even Paul wasn’t aware of who the high priest was at one time because they changed too often. I would also suggest as late as 50 AD because this is around the time I would say Luke had started writing Acts. He has time, before joining Paul, to begin the writing and time to continue it as they journey together. The second option gives a range of 34-60 AD, given that we don’t include the other Gospels coming first. The earliest it could be written depend on more than just the identity of the recipient. But in the extreme case of Mark being written based on Peter’s preaching by someone that believes the preaching could be lost if Peter is put to death like Stephen, it could then be said to be by someone spreading the word in written form to another area. This obviously has flaws that are countered by what I’ve written above about the author having followed these things for some time and the scribes bringing him the Gospel. The latter date on this is as much speculation based on having time in Rome to record it all for an official in the area while Luke waits for Paul’s trial.
Luke and Lucius of Cyrene share a name. That much can be seen by the uniqueness of the shorter name and where such a name comes from. The Greek “Loukanos” was used interchangeably with the Latin “Loukios” (Lucius) and “Luke” is the abbreviated form of the Latin. Origen supports this in his commentary on Romans. The shift in the name use from Lucius to Luke also accompanies the appearance of the “we” passages in Acts. This adds to the possibility that the nickname came because of his joining with Paul where the author refers to their younger self with their original name. Luke has a supposed ‘detailed’ knowledge of the church in Antioch and it is recorded by Eusebius that Luke is a native of Antioch. Both have ties to the location and both are met by Paul in that location. Luke joins Paul before he writes his letter to the Romans where Paul mentions Lucius sending his greetings. It’s possible that the believers in Rome don’t know Luke’s nickname so Paul uses his original name. Luke is a Hellenistic Jew, not part of the circumcision party like John Mark in Colossians 4. There is no reason to think that Paul is calling Luke a gentile here. Paul mentions this group of Judaizers with him in the context that he wants them to be treated well. He is saying that, even though they know Mark as the one that gave them “instructions”, they are to welcome him because they have been a comfort to Paul. The only one that might a gentile Christian is Epaphras because Paul says “who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus” as if he is different than the others but also a believer. Luke is not included in such a description.
Jesus dies in 33 AD. By 34 AD, Saul of Tarsus has started persecuting the followers of the Way. Stephen is put to death and this is overseen by Saul. After the followers scatter, some head to Antioch to preach the Way. Antioch is where Lucius of Cyrene is later found, having gone there to establish the Church. Between 34 and 36 AD, Saul encounters the risen Jesus and goes to Arabia for three years. Saul, now Paul, begins preaching in Damascus but after some conflict, goes to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles. In the years 36-46 AD, this is when Theophilus is high priest until around 41 AD, Paul visits Antioch where he meets Luke around 44 AD. Luke could have already written his Gospel to the high priest at this point. If he is the same person that fled to Antioch, then he could have had a connection to Theophilus before they were even appointed. Upon learning of their position, and by this point Paul had shifted from the position that the leaders in the temple had of opposing Jesus’ followers, Luke could have written the Gospel to their household in the hope that it would change their position as well. When he meets Paul, this is when he might get the idea to write a follow-up for his first book that involves the Apostles and leads up to Paul who he later follows to continue the book.
I think the theory of the Gospel According to Luke being written between 37-41 AD is the strongest. While it’s not the only possibility, it’s the one I’m going to believe in at this time. This also would support the theory of the Gospel According to Mark and Matthew’s Gospel being earlier than this. Perhaps that’s a topic for a later time while this idea is under construction.
It’s my current theory. I’m not a scholar so feel free to tell me what I’ve gotten wrong. I’ve been careful to state that most of this is just a possibility and there is little evidence to support it directly.
UPDATE
I have learned that the term 'most excellent' has been used for High Priests. While not used this way in the NT itself, outside of perhaps Luke's Gospel to Theophilus, it is used for such by Flavius Josephus.
It is also very possible that Papias was directly connected to John, son of Zebedee. This connection gives Papias an independent witness to the information that we get from what remains of his works, whatever way they are preserved. While there is still room for interpretation on what they say, be it that one Gospel was made public before another or written before another, it would appear that we can at most construct who thought they knew what at what time. The community was not as connected as we would be today. If Mark wrote first in 34 AD but did not leave that writing with others until he left with his father Peter "something I believe can be evident within the NT" to Rome, around 45 AD, as it can be understood that Agrippa arrested Peter who was still living in Jerusalem, between 41-44 AD. After this, Peter departed. When Peter departs, this is about the same time when Paul and Barnabas, still in Jerusalem, take Mark with them. All of this to say in summary, that Luke's Gospel could have been written to the High Priest Theophilus but not given to the public so that they didn't know about it, meanwhile, Mark's was already written but not handed down yet, and Matthew's Gospel 'perhaps a form that doesn't quite look like what we have today' was the public written work for a few years already though not likely copied.
No comments:
Post a Comment